Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Migratory...

Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Migratory Bird Species Report

Plumas National Forest Mt. Hough Ranger District

Prepared by:

Date:

Matthew Johnson

Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Program Manager

Plumas National Forest – Supervisor’s Office

Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Plumas National Forest Migratory Bird Species Report Mt. Hough District

2

Migratory Bird Species Report

Introduction

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for a

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land

area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January

2000 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation

Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000), followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition

to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 PIF

North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for integrating bird

conservation into forest management and planning.

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the

US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent

of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and

cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal,

state, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds

focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird

conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

The Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project (hereafter Chip-munk Project) located on the

Mt. Hough Ranger District proposes management that will implement direction contained within the

Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) (USDA Forest Service

1988), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (USDA Forest

Service 2004). Each of these planning efforts have addressed and considered opportunities to promote

the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats at the project level through the adherence of

Forest Plan Standard & Guidelines (MOU Section C: items 1 and 11 and Section D: items 1, 3, and

4). The Forest Plan Standard & Guidelines incorporated into the Chip-munk Project ensure the

maintenance of key habitat components (e.g. snags, large downed wood), as well as provide seasonal

protections and land designations or treatment buffers for key breeding habitats [e.g. Limited

Operating Periods (LOPs), Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Riparian

Conservation Areas (RCAs)].

The Plumas National Forest utilizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008 Birds of

Conservation Concern for the Sierra Nevada as its framework for analyzing effects to migratory birds.

Of this list of 11 bird species, project level reports (i.e. Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation

(BA/BE), Management Indicator Species Report (MIS) address 10 of the species either directly or by

using a surrogate species that utilize the same or similar habitat attributes. The following table

highlights how and where the eleven migratory birds are addressed directly or by using a surrogate

species.


3

Table 1. Migratory bird species occurring on the Plumas National Forest that were considered in the Chip-munk Project Analysis.

Birds of Conservation Concern (Sierra

Nevada - BCR 15) Species

(Scientific Name)

Species Status*

Forest Service Sensitive Species (S)

or Management Indicator Species

(MIS)

Project Level

Report (BA/BE or MIS)

Critical Habitat component or threat as defined by Sierra

Nevada Bird Conservation Plan

(PIF)

Category for

Project Analysis**

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

SE, USFWS : BCC

None, see below N/A

Bodies of water in open areas with protected cliffs, canyons and ledges for cover and nesting

3

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

USFS : S, SE,

USFWS : BCC Bald Eagle (S) BA/BE

Designated as a non-land bird by DeSante

3

Black swift (Cypseloides niger)

USFWS : BCC None, see below N/A Wet cliff, waterfalls 1

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis)

USFS : S, USFS : MIS, DFG : SSC,

USFWS : BCC

California Spotted Owl (S) BA/BE Depends critically on old growth forest

3

Calliope Hummingbird (Stellula calliope)

USFWS : BCC Sooty (Blue) Grouse (MIS) Yellow Warbler (MIS) Willow Flycatcher (S)

MIS MIS

BA/BE

Open Forested habitats, and moist habitats on the East Slope

2

Cassin’s Finch (Carpodacus cassinii)

USFWS : BCC California Spotted Owl (S) BA/BE Depends critically on old growth forest

3

Flammulated Owl (Otis flammeolus)

USFWS : BCC Mule Deer (MIS) Hairy Woodpecker (MIS)

MIS MIS

Depends critically on oaks or oak woodlands, Loss of snags

2

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)

USFWS : BCC Hairy Woodpecker (MIS) MIS Loss of snags 3

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

DFG : SSC, USFWS : BCC

California Spotted Owl (S) Hairy Woodpecker (MIS)

BA/BE MIS

Loss of snags, utilizes late successional/old growth forest, but does not depend on it critically

3

Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus)

USFWS : BCC Hairy Woodpecker (MIS) MIS Loss of snags 3

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii brewsteri)

USFS : S, SE,

USFWS : BCC Willow Flycatcher (S) BA/BE

Depends critically on montane meadow habitat

2

*Species Status: FE = Federal Endangered, FT = Federal Threatened, FP = Federal Proposed, FC = Federal Candidate, USFS : S = U.S. Forest Service - Sensitive, USFS : MIS = U.S. Forest Service – Management Indicator Species, SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, DFG : FP = State Fully Protected, DFG : SSC = State Species of Special Concern, USFWS : BCC = U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern, SOI = Species of Interest. **Category 1: Species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the aquatic or terrestrial wildlife analysis areas and would not be affected by the project. Category 2: Species whose habitat is in or adjacent to the aquatic or terrestrial wildlife analysis areas, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. Category 3: Species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Black Swift is identified as Category 1 above, will not be further discussed because the habitat

factors for these species are not in analysis area; therefore, the project will not directly or indirectly

affect these species or their habitat. Flammulated Owl, Calliope Hummingbird, Lewis’ Woodpecker.

Williamson’s Sapsucker, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Willow Flycatcher, identified as Category 2 above,

have habitat in the analysis areas but will not be further discussed because the habitat factors for this


4

species would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project; therefore, the project will not

affect these species or their habitat.

The species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Chip-munk

Project, identified as Category 3 in Table 1, are addressed in the Chip-munk Project BA/BE and/or

Chip-munk Project MIS report. This migratory bird report will evaluate the direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on these species and their habitat.

Description of Alternatives

The Chip-munk Project is located approximately 5 miles west of Greenville, California near Butt

Valley Reservoir and the communities of Seneca and Caribou within the Mt. Hough Ranger District,

Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California. The project area is within Management Areas 20

and 26 as described in the PNF LRMP. Management direction for these areas is described in the PNF

LRMP as amended by the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

Two alternatives are discussed in this Migratory Bird Report: the Proposed Action (Alternative

A), and the No-action alternative (Alternative B). The Proposed Action proposes to improve public

safety along roads by removing hazardous trees from approximately 1,788 acres, recovery of the

economic value of fire damaged timber on 3,675 acres, and plant native conifer seedlings to recover

forested conditions on up to 3,675 acres (Table 2). Detailed descriptions of the Chip-munk Project are

found in the Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Decision Memo (USDA Forest Service

2013). Implementation could begin as early as summer, 2013. All activities proposed would be

completed within approximately three to five years.

Comparison of the Alternatives

This section provides a summary of each alternative. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

(CWHR) data for the Chip-munk Project treatment units is provided in Table 2. The No-action

Alternative (Alternative B) would not treat any of these acres (see Appendix A for descriptions of

CWHR categories).

Effects Analysis Methodology

Geographic Analysis Areas

The treatment area is defined as the units to be treated, which equals approximately 5,464 acres. For

the purpose of this Migratory Bird Species Report, the analysis area is defined by 15 watersheds

surrounding the treatment area (Figure 1; 41,414 acres on NFS lands). The additional larger land base

was delineated based on roads being used for project activities including a 150’ buffer on either side

of the road and drafting sites (waterholes to draw water from). All potential direct, indirect and

cumulative effects discussed, occur within the 41,414 acre analysis area. The direct and indirect

effects of each alternative, together with the additive or cumulative effects of each


5

alternative, have been considered in evaluating impacts to migratory birds and migratory bird

habitat.

Table 2. Summary of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types within Chip-munk Project treatment units (5,464 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

Figure 1. Chips Fire perimeter, Chip-

munk Project treatment units, and

aquatic and terrestrial analysis area

used to evaluate and disclose the

impacts of the Chip-munk Project.

Roadside

Hazard -

skyline

Roadside

Hazard -

tractor

Salvage -

Skyline

Salvage -

tractor Total

AGS 0 3 0 0 3

BAR < 1 2 0 0 3

MCP 258 153 751 1862 3024

MHC 3 1 0 0 4

MHW 2 0 3 0 4

MRI 2D 1 0 0 0 1

PPN 3P, 3S, 4S 11 2 2 4 18

PPN 4P, 5P 2 8 2 13 25

PPN 5S 0 0 0 12 12

SMC 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 96 162 61 300 619

SMC 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 151 95 35 190 472

SMC 4D, 4M 174 99 35 112 420

SMC 5D, 5M 238 184 38 173 633

WFR 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 3 23 1 40 68

WFR 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 9 25 0 28 62

WFR 4D, 4M 17 12 0 10 39

WFR 5D, 5M 37 19 < 1 < 1 57

TOTAL 1002 786 929 2746 5464


6

Specific Assumptions

The following assumptions apply specifically to the Migratory Bird Species analysis:

Assumption 1: All standards and guidelines, standard operating procedures (SOPs), project

specific design features and mitigations would be fully adhered to and implemented, including the use

of the appropriate Limited Operating Periods (LOP).

Assumption 2: All activities proposed would be completed within approximately three to five

years.

Assumption 3: Where possible, all hardwoods and wildlife inhabited trees (nest trees, etc.) would

be retained.

Assumption 4: Analysis assumes occupancy unless project area has been surveyed to protocol

and found to be absent of the species.

Assumption 5: Proposed activities have the potential to affect migratory bird species, either

directly by the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, and rarely from direct mortality

if nest trees are felled, or indirectly through changes to canopy cover, age class structure and species

composition, etc.

Specific Methodology

The Chip-munk Project was reviewed on the ground, as well as, using aerial photographs, digital

orthophoto quadrangles (DOQs), vegetation layer spatial datasets, species specific spatial datasets and

known information to help determine suitable habitat for TES species (i.e. northern goshawks, etc.).

In the field, areas identified as suitable habitat in the analysis area were surveyed. Species nest sites

and locations were recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) and incorporated into spatial

datasets. For the analysis of effects, changes to suitable habitat and impacts to management units (i.e.,

protected activity centers, PACs; nesting territories, etc.) were determined using a spatial dataset of

the vegetation layer combined with type of treatments (e.g. mechanical, skyline, salvage, roadside

hazard tree removal, etc.).

Data Sources

GIS layers containing the following information: vegetation layer, ownership, aquatic

features (streams, springs and lakes, etc.), riparian/aquatic management areas

(riparian conservation areas (RCAs), streamside management zones (SMZs) and

critical aquatic refuges (CARs), etc.) and species management layers (PACs, HRCAs

and Ranges, etc.).

Project survey reports and incidental detection records, etc.

Scientific literature.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Indicators

Direct and Indirect Effects of Mechanical Treatments

Indicator Measure 1: Acres of suitable habitat modified, lost or fragmented.


7

Indicator Measure 2: Habitat components modified, lost or fragmented.

Short-term timeframe: 1 year

Long-term timeframe: 25-30 years. This length of time was chosen because climate change,

unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc. make assessment beyond this timeframe

speculative.

Spatial Boundary: Analysis area.

Methodology: Indicator Measure 1 is comprised of a GIS analysis of the proposed

silvicultural treatments in relation to suitable habitat for each species as well as qualitative

assessments. Analysis focuses on potential suitable habitat and qualitatively discusses the

potential affects to habitat components. Suitable habitat is species specific, for example,

goshawk habitat consists of specific nesting and foraging habitat features. Indicator Measure

2 is comprised of a qualitative assessment of snags, structural diversity, down woody debris,

prey species and competitors, etc. due to the scarcity of data on these habitat components.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

Long-term timeframe: 25-30 years. This length of time was chosen because climate change,

unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc. make assessment beyond this timeframe

speculative.

Spatial Boundary: Analysis area.

Methodology: In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of

the alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of

past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human

actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative

effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this

approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly

costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century

(and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would

be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not

be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited

information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably

identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions.

Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual

effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human

actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human

actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects.

Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed

information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an


8

interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies

can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of

past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.

Present and future projects planned that overlap with the terrestrial wildlife analysis areas may

have cumulative impacts to wildlife, fisheries and amphibians. In this analysis, each present and

future project is analyzed by species in order to understand the contribution of present and future

projects to the cumulative effects of the alternatives.

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences for Migratory Bird Species

Direct effects include immediate changes in habitat conditions and disturbance/ harassment to

individuals, including direct mortality during project activities. It is assumed that the Proposed Action

would be implemented as stated, in compliance with all rules and regulations governing land

management activities, including the use of the appropriate LOPs. Direct disturbance, including

mortality to individual animals addressed in this document is highly unlikely, due to survey efforts for

selected species, incorporation of LOPs where appropriate, and implementation of Forest standards

and guidelines. Indirect effects include effects that occur later in time or beyond the action area of the

project. Indirect effects can also include effects to a species prey base.

Standards and Guidelines for Wildlife Species

Standards and guidelines can be found in PNF LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1988), as

amended by the SNFPA (USDA Forest Service 2004). The following Limited Operation

Periods (LOP) would be implemented within ¼ mile of known active nest sites: American

Peregrine Falcon, February 1 – August 31; California Spotted Owl: March 1 – August 15,

Northern goshawk: February 15 – September 15, Bald eagle: November 1 – August 31.

Cumulative effects analysis for ESA compliance includes "those effects of future State or Private

activities, not involving Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of

the Federal action subject to consultation". Under NEPA, cumulative effects represent the impact on

the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal)

or person undertakes such other actions.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Affected Environment – American Peregrine Falcon

PNF biologists have reviewed habitat for the Peregrine Falcon on the Plumas NF extensively since

the early 1980’s. Habitat for the Peregrine consists of five rock cliff sites on and adjacent to the

Forest, located at Bald Rock, Canyon Dam, Pulga, Bonta Ridge, and Beckwourth Butte (Tahoe NF).

Disturbance to these are is limited as management activities do not generally impact rock cliff sites.


9

Projects with an analysis area that falls within a ½ mile vicinity of these five sites are analyzed for

potential impacts to the Peregrine Falcon, whereas projects with an analysis area outside of a ½ mile

vicinity of these sites are not analyzed for impact to the species. The Canyon Dam Peregrine Falcon

territory is in the analysis area.

Environmental Consequences – American Peregrine Falcon

Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects of Mechanical Treatments (Action Alternative)

Indicator Measure 1 & 2: Acres of suitable habitat modified, lost or fragmented and Habitat components modified, lost or fragmented.

Potential direct effects on the Peregrine Falcon may result from the modification or loss of foraging

habitat and possible behavioral disturbance to nesting peregrines from logging or other associated

activities within or adjacent to occupied habitat which could inhibit nesting or reduce nesting success.

Implementation of a LOP around known Peregrine Falcon site would remove the effects to existing

falcon pairs associated with direct disturbance on treatment units and access routes. The Canyon Dam

Peregrine Falcon territory is in the analysis area. This territory is currently active, the female was

observed incubating a clutch at the beginning of April 2013.

The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees (1,788 acres) and conduct salvage and

reforestation (3,675 acres) on approximately 5,464 acres (Table 2). The closest treatment units to the

Canyon Dam Peregrine Falcon territory are > 0.5 miles distance away. The Proposed Action

(Alternative A) is planting desirable conifer species to promote the reestablishment and development

of a mature, closed canopy, conifer forest. The existing Montane Chaparral type would be converted

to Sierra Mixed Conifer types 1 and 2 (shrub/seedling/sapling) after reforestation, when conifer

seedlings would be competing with brush for the next 2 to 5 decades. This could indirectly affect

Peregrine Falcons by creating a mosaic of habitat patches across the landscape which may positively

impact other avian species within the habitat, and potentially provide additional foraging

opportunities for falcons, which primarily consume avian prey.

Cumulative Effects

The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis

of cumulative effects of the alternatives evaluates the impact on avian habitat and species addressed

in this report from the existing condition within the analysis area.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County

roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area

residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and

the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside

Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to

250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree

removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas;

however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of


10

road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The

four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt

Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have no effect on Peregrine

Falcon as the appropriate LOP was implemented.

Woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are expected to continue. The past

and future effect of these actions has and would be to shift forest successional stages to somewhat

earlier stages, while generally retaining continuous forest cover which would have no effect on

Peregrine Falcon.

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking,

horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife

watching. The use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on

Peregrine Falcon habitat in the analysis area.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chips Project (salvage, danger tree and

reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. Lassen biologists found

no record of Peregrine Falcon or suitable habitat in the Poker Chips project area.

Approximately nine miles of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way corridors (Caribou-

Westwood 60 KV, Caribou-Plumas Jct. 60 KV, Caribou-Table Mtn 230 KV, Caribou-Palermo 115

KV, Caribou #2 60 KV, and Butt Valley-Caribou 115 KV) have been identified and proposed for

economical tree recovery within the analysis area (Chips Fire PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber

Project). This project is still in the planning phase, with treatment units currently being delineated

(up to 250 acres).

Alternative 2 – No-action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects of Mechanical Treatments (Alternative 2)

Indicator Measure 1 & 2: Acres of suitable habitat modified, lost or fragmented and Habitat components modified, lost or fragmented.

There would be no direct or indirect effects on peregrine falcons or peregrine falcon habitat, as no

activities would occur that would cause disturbance to nesting or foraging birds, nor any impacts to

the existing habitat conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The No-action Alternative for the Chip-munk Project would not provide for the long-term protection

of peregrine falcon habitat from large stand-replacing fire. There would be no actions designed to

reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire.


11

Literature Cited

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2000. Version 1.0. The draft grassland bird conservation plan:

a strategy for protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California

(B. Allen, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. Version 1.0. The draft coniferous forest bird

conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coniferous forest habitats and

associated birds in California (J. Robinson and J. Alexander, lead authors). Point Reyes Bird

Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html.

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. Version 2.0. The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a

strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in

California (S. Zack, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.


CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2004. Version 2.0. The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird

Conservation Plan: a Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal Scrub and Chaparral

Habitats and Associated Birds in California (J. Lovio, lead author). PRBO Conservation

Science, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2005. Version 1.0. The sagebrush bird conservation plan: a

strategy for protecting and managing sagebrush habitats and associated birds in California.

PRBO Conservation Science, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html

CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2009. Version 1.0. The Desert Bird Conservation Plan: a

Strategy for Protecting and Managing Desert Habitats and Associated Birds in California.

California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html

RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for

reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight.

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian_v-2.pdf

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W.

Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O.

Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Ithaca, NY.

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra

Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird

populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF

LRMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Region. CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. January 2004.



12

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding

between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife

Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-

264. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Peak Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project Decision Memo,

Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. December 2008.


13

APPENDIX A

Wildlife Habitat Relationship Strata

Table A-1. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Strata Definitions

Tree Canopy Closure Shrub Canopy Closure Herbaceous Canopy Closure

Closure Class Canopy Closure



S Sparse 10-24% S Sparse 10-24% S Sparse 2-9%

P Open 25-39% P Open 25-39% P Open 10-39%

M Moderate 40-59% M Moderate 40-59% M Moderate 40-59%

D Dense 60-100% D Dense 60-100% D Dense 60-100%

Tree Size Class Shrub Size Class Herbaceous Size Class

Size Class dbh Size Class Crown Decadence

Height Class Height at Maturity

1 Seedling < 1inch 1 Seedling seedlings or sprouts < 3 years

1 Short < 12 inch

2 Sapling 1 to 6 inch 2 Young None 2 Tall > 12 inch

3 Pole 6 to 11 inch 3 Mature 1 - 25%

4 Small 11 to 24 inch

4 Decadent > 25%

5 Medium/ Large > 24 inch

6 Multi – Layered *

*Size class 5 trees over a distinct layer of size class 4 or 3 trees; total tree canopy exceeds 60% closure.

Wildlife Habitat Relationship Codes

Table A-2. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Vegetation Codes

Habitat Definition Habitat Definition

AGS Annual Grassland MHW Montane Hardwood

ASP Aspen MRI Montane Riparian

BAR Barren PGS Perennial Grassland

BBR Bitterbrush PPN Ponderosa Pine

DFR Douglas-Fir RFR Red Fir

EPN Eastside Pine SCN Subalpine Conifer

JPN Jeffrey Pine SGB Sagebrush

LAC Lacustrine SMC Sierran Mixed Conifer

LPN Lodgepole Pine URB Urban

MCH Mixed Chaparral WFR White Fir

MCP Montane Chaparral WTM Wet meadow

MHC Montane Hardwood-Conifer

Date post:	06-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vucong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Migratory...

Documents